19,620 rated or chosen profiles from 1,962 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 5 attributes.

About this table

Description	British YouGov respondents (June 2014; n=1,962) each saw 5 hypothetical marginal-constituency contests between the current MP and the main challenger (party, age, gender, former job; MP's good or bad conduct) and said whom they would vote for, with third-party and abstention options.
Reference	Eggers, A. C., Vivyan, N., & Wagner, M. (2018). Corruption, accountability, and gender: Do female politicians face higher standards in public life? The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 321-326.
DOI	10.1086/694649
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MOTRM2

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). choice: "If you were living in this constituency at the next general election, which party would you vote for?" (current MP = profile 1, challenger = profile 2); opt-outs (third-party candidate, another party, would not vote) leave choice = 0 on both profiles in 4,305 of 9,810 tasks. The MP is always Labour or Conservative and the challenger a different party; the conduct line describes the MP only. Respondent party-identification flags dropped as derived; N = 1,962 matches the article and Table 1 col. 1 reproduces exactly.

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	1,962
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	19,620
Tasks per respondent (most)	5
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	5
Tasks with no profile chosen	4,305

Design

Topic	candidate choice, corruption accountability
A profile represents	person
Country	GB
Language shown	en
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	yes (stated by the source): MP party Labour or Conservative, challenger always a different party (4 seat types: Con-Lab, Con-LD, Lab-Con, Lab-LD); MP ages 45/52/64 vs challenger 38/51/62; conduct line for the MP only
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead.

Outcomes:

choice	If you were living in this constituency at the next general election, which party would you vote for? [choice, opt-out allowed]

Columns

attr_ageattr_conductattr_genderattr_partyattr_previous_jobchoicecov_age_groupcov_gendercov_socialgradeidprofiletask

The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):

# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("eggers_2018_mp_misconduct", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("eggers_2018_mp_misconduct", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Eggers_2018, title={Corruption, Accountability, and Gender: Do Female Politicians Face Higher Standards in Public Life?}, volume={80}, ISSN={1468-2508}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/694649}, DOI={10.1086/694649}, number={1}, journal={The Journal of Politics}, publisher={University of Chicago Press}, author={Eggers, Andrew C. and Vivyan, Nick and Wagner, Markus}, year={2018}, month=Jan, pages={321–326} }

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint v4.2
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/qkye-q530
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v4.2
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0